THE PERPETUITY OF THE ROYAL LAW,

OR,
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS NOT ABOLISHED.

By J. N. ANDREWS

IT is painful to witness the various inconsistent and self-contradictory positions

resorted to by those who reject the Sabbath of the Lord. But of all the positions
adopted, none seem so dangerous, or fraught with such alarming consequences,
as the view that the law of God, by which the Sabbath is enforced, has been abol-
ished, and that we are, therefore, under no obligation to remember the Sabbath-
day to keep it holy. The question whether God has abolished his law or not, is,
indeed, the main point at issue in the Sabbath controversy; for when it is shown
that law still exists, and that its perpetuity is clearly taught in the New Testament,
the question is most conclusively settled, that the Sabbath is binding on us, and
upon all men.
The Sabbath of the Lord is embodied in the fourth commandment of the Deca-
logue. This commandment stands in the midst of nine moral precepts which Je-
hovah, after uttering with his own voice, wrote with his own finger on the tables
of stone. These nine commandments stand around the Sabbath of the Lord, an
impregnable bulwark, which all the enemies of that sacred institution in vain at-
tempt to destroy. It is evident that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment cannot
be set aside unless the Decalogue can be destroyed. Hence the enemies of the Sab-
batic institution have brought their heaviest artillery to bear upon the law of the
Most High: calculating that when they had destroyed this strong hold, the Sabbath
would fall an easy prey to their attack. We invite attention then to the law and to
the testimony. By the unerring word of God we wish to settle this question; and
this we believe can be done in the most satisfactory manner.
That the hand-writing of ordinances containing the feasts, new moons and the
associated annual sabbaths of the Jews, has been abolished and taken out of the
way, we do not doubt. This was not the moral law of God; but was merely the
shadow of good things to come. But the royal law in which are the ten command-
ments of God is the subject of this investigation, and it is the perpetuity and im-
mutability of this law that we affirm. If the law of God has been destroyed, the act
must have been accomplished by one of three things; viz., 1. By the teachings of
the Lord Jesus; or 2. By his death; or 3. By the apostles. We believe that all will
agree to this statement.
1. Was the law of God abolished by the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ? Let
us listen to his own words.
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever there-
fore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall
be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do, and teach
them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matt.5:17-19.
Our Lord here testifies that he did not come to destroy the law or the prophets.
Then it is a fact that he did not destroy either. But what is it to destroy the law? We
answer, that it can only signify to abolish, or to annul it. And thus Campbell ren-
ders the word:—“Think not that I am come to subvert the law.” Whiting renders
it:—“Think not that I am come to annul the law.” It is therefore certain that our
Lord did not come to subvert, annul, or destroy, the law of God. Hence it follows
that the law of God was not annulled or abrogated by him. He adds, that instead
of coming to destroy, he came to fulfill. If this was the object of the Saviour’s
mission, did he not by this act do away the law, set is aside, and relieve us from
obligation to keep its precepts? Let us see. As Campbell renders the text, it reads,
“I am not come to subvert, but to ratify.” That is, I am not come to abolish the law,
but to confirm, and render still more sacred, its just demands. If that was the object
of our Lord’s mission, it follows that he did not lessen our obligation to obey the
law of his Father.
But let us return to the word “fulfill.” Christ came to fulfill the law, hence he
did fulfill it. What is it to fulfill a law? Let the apostle James answer: “If ye fulfill
the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,
ye do well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced
of the law as transgressors.” James2:8,9. It is evident that James here places the
transgression of the law in contrast with, or in opposition to, the fulfillment of the
law; therefore it follows that the fulfillment of the law is the reverse of its viola-
tion. In other words, it is its observance. To fulfill the law in the manner that James
enjoins, is to render complete obedience to its divine requirements.
But it may be contended that to fulfill the law in the sense of our Lord’s declara-
tion, accomplishes its purpose, and takes it out of the way. To show the absurdity
of this view, let us take another of Christ’s sayings which is of the same character,
precisely. When John refused to baptize the Saviour, Jesus said, “Suffer it to be
so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” Matt.3:15. Did the
Saviour, by fulfilling all righteousness, weaken, take out of the way, or destroy all
righteousness? Certainly not. No one will claim that he lessened our obligation to
fulfill all righteousness also.
But how did Christ fulfill the law of his Father? There is but one way in which
this could be accomplished, and that is to answer its just demands. What were
those demands? We answer: first, the law of God demands perfect obedience. The
justice of this, none will deny. But when the law has been violated, it demands
the death of the transgressor. Sin is the transgression of the law.” 1John3:4. “The
wages of sin is death.” Rom.6:23. “The soul that sinneth it shall die. Eze.18:4.
When Christ came to fulfill the law, he came to do this, not for himself, but in
behalf of our race. He came to fulfill the law as the Messiah: an office or character
which no other being ever possessed. He came to undertake for fallen men, and in
a certain sense placed himself in their situation. What then was the relation which
our race sustained to the law of God? We answer: all have sinned, and come short
of the glory of God. The law of God stopped every mouth, and showed all men
sinners in the sight of God. Rom.3.
Then, when the Saviour took upon himself our nature, and came to fulfill the
law of his Father, that law not only demanded perfect obedience; but it also justly
demanded the death of our race; for all were its transgressors. The work of the
Saviour, therefore, in fulfilling the law of his Father, was of a twofold character.
He must first render perfect obedience to all its precepts, and then offer up his
own life as a ransom for guilty man. To fulfill the law as the Messiah, Christ must
perform all this. Did he thus do? He kept his Father’s commandments. John15:10.
In him there was no transgression of the law. 1John3:4,5. He was the Lamb of
God without spot, [1Pet.1:19.] in whom the Father was well pleased. Matt.3:17.
2 15
of God constitutes a man a sinner, and exposes him to the penalty of the law -
Rom.6:23; Eze.18:4,20;Rev.20:14,15.
“My little children, these things write I unto you that ye sin not. And if any
man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he
is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole
world.” 1John2:1,2. We have already listened to John’s definition of sin, and have
learned that it is the “transgression of the law.” Many affirm that this is the law of
Christ. In the text before us we have the means of deciding this point. John begins
by exhorting those to whom he writes, not to sin; that is, not to transgress the law.
He adds, “If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous.” Then it is God the Father whose law is broken, and with whom an
advocate is needed, by the sinner. There is one Law-giver, whose holy law has
been broken by all mankind; and there is one Mediator between that Law-giver
and the transgressor. James4:12; Rom.3:19,23; 1Tim.2:5,6. The one Law-giver is
God the Father; the one Mediator is our Lord Jesus Christ. If Christ were the Law-
giver, then our mediator must be between Christ and us. But instead of this, God
the Father is the being whose law has been transgressed, and Jesus is the great
High Priest between that broken law and its guilty transgressors. And this fact is
confirmed by the next sentence: “He is the propitiation of our sins; and not for
ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Then Jesus stands between the
Law-giver and the sinner, not only as an advocate, mediator and High Priest, but
also as the propitiation for the sins of men. In other words, he is the great Sacrifice
offered for man’s transgression of the law of God.
How deeply interesting is the thought that in the temple of God in heaven,
where the ark containing the law of God abides, we have a great High Priest, who
has once offered himself for our transgression of that free pardon of all our trans-
gressions. Rev.11:19; Heb.8:1-3.
To the professed people of God who still violate his law, we would address a
word of exhortation and entreaty. “As though God did beseech you by us, we pray
you in Christ’s stead be ye reconciled to God.” The carnal mind is enmity against
God, and is not subject to his law. Pray that God may deliver you from it. Would
you possess that charity or perfect love, so fully described in 1Cor.13, which is the
fulfilling of the law? Then heed the words of the apostle John: “This is the love of
God that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous.”
1John5:3.
The fourth commandment has long been trodden down, but under the latest
message of mercy to men, the people of God are seen keeping all his command-
ments and the faith or testimony of Jesus Christ. Rev.14:9-12. Will you not be
of this number? The dragon is yet to make war upon this remnant of the church;
but he shall not prevail. Rev.12:17. The last testimony respecting the command-
ment-keepers is given by the Son of God in Rev.22:14. “Blessed are they that do
his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in
through the gates into the city.” This is the fruition of our blessed hope, shortly
to be realized.
Reprint 2007
How great, then, must be the guilt of those who openly desecrate the fourth com-
mandment, after they have once been enlightened respecting it by the word of
God!
Finally, the great design of the gospel is to deliver fallen man from the just
condemnation of the law of God, and to place him where he may fulfill the righ-
teousness of the law.
“The Law reveals and makes us know
What duties to our God we owe;
But ‘tis the Gospel must reveal
Where lies our strength to do his will.”
“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgres-
sion of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and
in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath
not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that
doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin
is of the devil.” 1John3:4-8.
This text is worthy of careful examination. Let us notice some important truths
here presented.
1. The New Testament definition of sin is here given: “Sin is the transgression
of the law.” Every sinner is a transgressor of the law of God.
2. John establishes the fact that this is the original law of God, by the statement
that Christ was “manifested to take away our sins;” (transgressions of the law;)
thus showing that it was a law which existed, and was transgressed prior to the
first advent.
3. In Christ there was no sin; no transgression of the law. This ought forever to
silence those who affirm that Christ broke the fourth commandment.
4. “Ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins.” Those who think
that Christ was manifested to take away the law of his Father, would do well to
consider this verse. He was manifested to take away (not the law of God, but) sin,
the transgression of law. If Christ was manifested to take away the law, it follows
that to remove our transgression, he took away the law which he had transgressed:
thus showing that he had a greater dislike to the law of his Father than he had to
sin, the transgression of that law! But how did Christ take away sins? “He ap-
peared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Heb.9:26. He shed his own
blood as a propitiation for the sins of men: thus honoring the law of God, and
opening to guilty man a way of escape.
5. “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not;” that is, whosoever abideth in Christ,
doth not transgress the law. This is a truth of the deepest importance to those
who think that the law is made void by faith, or done away by the gospel. Not a
few who understandingly break the fourth commandment, quiet their consciences
with the thought that Christ is their Saviour. Let such remember that none abide
in Christ, who understandingly transgress the law of God. In this matter of vital
importance, the Apostle utters a solemn warning: “Let no man deceive you: he
that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth
sin (transgresseth the law of God) is of the devil; “All thy commandments” says
the Psalmist, “are righteousness.” Ps.119:172. Every violation of the law is sin.
Those who understandingly transgress the law of God, to use the severe language
of the beloved disciple, are “of the devil.” To break any one of the commandments
14
And this was not all; he took upon himself the sin of the world. Isa.3:6; John1:29.
He bore our sin in his own body upon the tree. 1Pet.2:24. He died the just for the
unjust, giving his own life a ransom for many. 1Pet.3:18; Matt.20:28. God can
now be just, and yet justify him that believeth in Jesus. Rom.3:25,26. Thus Christ
lived our example and died our sacrifice.
Did this work of the Messiah, in rendering perfect obedience to all the law
of God, and then offering up himself as a ransom for its transgressors, weaken
that law, or lessen our obligation to obey it? Never. It shows in the most strik-
ing light, its perpetuity and immutability. The law of God condemned our race.
Jehovah would open the way for man’s salvation. He could not destroy his own
moral law; but he could give his own beloved and only Son to die for its trans-
gressors. This evinces the estimate which the Father placed upon his own law.
Isaiah predicted that Christ should magnify the law, and make it honorable.
Isa.42:21. The record of Christ’s life and death shows the fulfillment of this
prediction.
But Christ adds a solemn affirmation. “For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven
and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled. What is a jot and a tittle? A jot is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alpha-
bet. A tittle is a small point by which some of those letters are distinguished from
others. Our Lord therefore solemnly affirms that the minutest point shall not pass
from the law till all be fulfilled. Then it is certain that a part will not be destroyed
and the remainder of the law be left in force. Consequently as long as a part of
the original precepts continue, all of them abide without one jot or tittle being
destroyed. Further than this, Christ has plainly marked the point of time before
which no part of the law of God shall pass. “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Has heaven and
earth passed away? Let those answer who teach the abolition of the law of God.
When will heaven and earth pass? Let the beloved disciple answer: “And I saw a
great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and heaven
fled away; and there was found no place for them.” If the fulfillment of the law of
God destroys it, that destruction cannot take place before the final conflagration of
the heavens and the earth. 2.Pet.3. Prior to that time the minutest point shall not be
destroyed. If therefore one jot or one tittle shall on no account pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled; and if the point before which this shall not be accomplished is
the passing of the heavens and the earth, it follows that the Lord Jesus not only
designed that the law should be fulfilled by himself for the brief period of his
sojourn on earth, but also, that the righteousness of the law should be fulfilled in
his church; or as Whiting renders Rom.8:4, “that the precept of the law might be
fulfilled by us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.”
The next verse establishes this view.
“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall
teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever
shall do, and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Let us carefully consider this verse. The word “whosoever” takes up all persons
through all coming time. The word “therefore” shows that this verse is the conclu-
sion drawn from the premises which the Saviour had just laid down, which were
these: 1. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law.” 2. “Till heaven and earth
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”
As not a single particle of this holy law was to be destroyed, it was fitting that the
3
Lord Jesus should speak with distinctness respecting its observance and its viola-
tion. This is what he now utters.
“Shall break one of these least commandments.” Then we have here the op-
posite of fulfilling the law; viz. the breaking of the commandments. We may also
learn that the law in verses 17,18, means the commandments.
“One of these least.” Christ had said that not one jot or one tittle should pass
from the law till all be fulfilled, so that there could be no excuse for those who
teach that a part of the law has been destroyed, and that the remainder is yet in
force. But Christ did not leave the subject thus. He now tells what shall be the
fate of those who violate the least of the commandments. Those who select nine
of them, and omit one of the commandments, which they think not worth their
notice, are the very persons that Christ here reproves.
“And shall teach men so.” Who are they that teach men to violate the command-
ments? Those who teach men that they have all been abolished go far beyond the
crime that Christ has here noted. The Saviour spoke of those who should violate
the least one. Some at the present day teach men that all of them are abolished.
This is the grand and effectual method to teach men to violate the law of God. But
those who make any one of the commandments void, that they may keep in its
place a tradition of the elders, are doing exactly the work that our Lord has here
solemnly warned men against.
“He shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven;” or, as Campbell ren-
ders, “shall be of no esteem in the reign of heaven.” This is, doubtless, the idea
of the Saviour. This is the penalty of a violation of the least precept of the law of
God. But how much more fearful must it be to break the commandments and to
teach men that they have all been abolished!
“But whosoever shall do and teach them.” Here we may learn what it is to fulfill
the law of God. It is to do and to teach the commandments. “The same shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Or, as rendered by Campbell, “shall be
highly esteemed in the reign of heaven.” Here is the ample commission; here is
the vast reward of those who teach and keep the commandments of God. Surely,
no man ever enjoined obedience to the law of God with such force as did our Lord
Jesus Christ. Let us hear his words again:—
“But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the command-
ment of God by your tradition? For God commanded saying, Honor thy father and
mother; and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say,
Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou
mightest be profited by me; and honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free.
Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.”
Matt.15:3-6.
These words disclose to us the sacredness of God’s commandments in the
mind of the Lord Jesus. He did not deny that he violated the traditions of the
Jews, but he boldly arraigned their traditions, and condemned them as worth-
less in the sight of God. And not only as worthless, but also as sinful, inasmuch
as they contradict and make void the commandments of God. The tradition in
question was very venerable with the Jews, inasmuch as they supposed that it
had been handed down from Moses; thus being equally ancient and sacred in
their estimation with the commandment which it so effectually made void. On
such authority the Jews thought themselves fully justified in an open violation
of the fifth commandment. Nay, they even supposed that the observance of this
4 13
but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, “Thou shalt not
covet.” Rom.7:7. The conversion of Paul took place some years after the cruci-
fixion of Christ; so that what he says relative to the law of God has direct bearing
upon this subject.
The experience of the Apostle, as here narrated by himself, is a proper example
of sound conversion to God. The law of God struck the first blow in Paul’s reli-
gious experience; and thus it is with all others. The tenth commandment of the
decalogue convinced Paul that he was a sinner; and he testifies that had it not been
for that precept of the law, he had not known himself a sinner: thus exemplifying
his own statement that “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” showing that the law
is God’s great standard of right.
The remainder of chapter 7 exhibits the powerful struggle of Paul, as an awak-
ened sinner, to keep the law of God. He is constrained to call the law holy, and the
commandment holy and just and good; and he testifies that it is by the command-
ment that sin becomes exceeding sinful. He adds that the law is spiritual, but that
he is carnal, sold under sin. His language depicts in the most striking manner the
power of the carnal mind. Notwithstanding he approved the holiness and excel-
lence of the law of God, he was earned, sold under sin, and unable to render ac-
ceptable obedience to its precepts. The other law of sin in his members baffled all
his efforts to keep the law of God. In despair he flies to Christ for refuge and help.
He obtains forgiveness of his past transgression of the law of God, through faith
in the great propitiation for sin; he is delivered from the carnal mind—that other
law of sin in the members—and grace is given him, that he may hereafter render
acceptable obedience to the law of God. Rom.8:1-4.
The guilt of transgression, and the just condemnation of the law, are now gone;
Paul is under grace; the law of God is now placed in his heart; and he manifests his
love to God by keeping his commandments. The first part of Romans 8, presents
this happy change. This narration of the Apostle’s experience strikingly illustrates
the word of David: “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” Several
important truths are clearly brought to view by this portion of scripture.
1. The law of God has not been abolished; for here is direct testimony that it
existed in its full strength, several years after the crucifixion.
2. The law here referred to is the decalogue; for Paul quotes its tenth precept.
Nor can this be evaded by saying that Paul quoted from the law of Christ. (1.) The
words purport to come from “the law:” an expression never used with reference
to the words of Christ. (2.) The words in verse 7 are a literal quotation from the
decalogue; but as Christ never used the expression, they are not a quotation from
his words. (3.) There is direct proof in verses 22 and 25 that Paul quotes from “the
law of God.”
3. The law of God is his standard of holy principles; if these were abolished, sin
could not be known.
4. The law of God began Paul’s experience. If that were abolished, there could
be no Christian experience, for there could be no knowledge of sin, the Apostle
being judge. Rom.3:20; 4:15; 7:7.
5. “Sin by the commandment” becomes exceeding sinful.” Verse 13. The refer-
ence to the law and the commandment, in this chapter cannot be mistaken. No
one will attempt to deny that Paul refers directly to the decalogue, using the tenth
commandment as a representative of all the rest. The sin forbidden by each of the
commandments, becomes “exceeding sinful” when viewed in their holy light.
established a new law in the place of the original code. But those who insist on
the idea that Christ by quoting a part of the ten commandments established a new
code, would do well to ask themselves the question, why Christ never quoted one
of the first four commandments. This imaginary new law is no great improvement
on the original, when the fact appears that the first four commandments are not
quoted by Christ, and consequently on its advocates’ own showing, do not form
a part of this law.
But there is direct evidence that Paul quotes from the Decalogue. By a word of
comment inserted in the parenthesis, he identifies this as the first commandment
with promise. It is a fact that though Christ has quoted this commandment, he has
never appended any promise to it whatever; much less has he added the one here
quoted by Paul. It is also a fact that this commandment does stand in the Deca-
logue, not only as its first commandment with promise, but with the very promise
in question annexed! Hence it is a fact that Paul quotes from the Decalogue, and
this too for the purpose of enforcing one of the clearest duties in the word of God:
thus distinctly acknowledging the fifth commandment as the fountain head of all
authority on this subject. With this important fact before us, we can judge whether
those do not wrest the words of Paul, who represent him as teaching the abolition
of all the ten commandments. Paul tells the Ephesians that he had kept back noth-
ing that was profitable to them. Acts.20:20. If therefore the moral law had been
abolished, Paul must have revealed this important fact to them. What then must
the Ephesians have thought when Paul wrote them four years later, appealing to
the Decalogue, and not to his apostolic authority, to enforce the duty of children
to their parents? Paul was never guilty of such inconsistency; it belongs only to
those who teach the abolition of the ten commandments.
“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish
the law.” Rom.3:31. This text has been already quoted as concluding Paul’s argu-
ment on redemption through the death of Christ. We quote it again to give Paul an
opportunity to speak explicitly on the question before us. No one of the apostles
has treated so largely upon the doctrine of justification by faith as the apostle
Paul. But lest any should conclude from the earnest manner in which he insists
upon this doctrine that he believed the law of God abolished, he asks this very
question that he may answer it in the most definite manner. His answer should
put to the blush those teachers who represent Paul as setting aside, or teaching the
abolition of the moral law. “God forbid,” says the Apostle, “yea, we establish the
law.” Nor can an exception be taken to the form of the Apostle’s question; for the
same word that is rendered “make void” in this verse, is in 2Cor.3:13; Eph.2:15;
2Tim.1:10, rendered “abolished.” Paul has therefore rendered a definite answer to
the question under consideration. And the strong language he uses in denying that
he taught the abolition of that sacred law, should forever silence those who lay
such an accusation against him.
Paul well understood the fact, that, though men now have the offer of pardon
through the blood of Christ, the time will arrive when this work of mercy will be
finished, and the just penalty of the law of God be inflicted upon all who are then
in their sins. Knowing the terror of the Lord, he labored night and day to persuade
men to become reconciled unto God, and thus escape the penalty of the law - the
second death. Paul affirms that he did not teach the abolition of the law. Who dare
affirm that he did? Yes, said he, we establish the law. Who dare deny it?
“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin,
12
tradition was more acceptable to God then the observance of the commandment
itself.
At the present time we have a case precisely parallel. The professed church of
this day hold a tradition which they say came from Christ and his apostles. On the
authority of this tradition they suppose that they are amply justified in violating
the fourth commandment. Like the Jews they even think that they are serving God
more acceptably by keeping a tradition that contradicts his commandment, than
they would be in keeping the commandment itself. The rebuke which Christ applied
to the Jews, falls with all its force upon the heads of such: “Thus have ye made
the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did
Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth,
and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do
worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Verses 6-9.
“And behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall
I do that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me
good? there is none good but one, that is God; but if thou wilt enter into life,
keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no
murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear
false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor
as thyself.” Matt.19:16-19.
Let us carefully consider these words of our Lord. The young man came to him
with the most important question that he could ask. The Saviour returned to him
the most simple, direct and appropriate answer. Jesus said to him, “If thou wilt
enter into life, keep the commandments.” The young man, who, it is evident from
the narrative, thought himself already observing them all, asked Jesus, Which? In
answer, Jesus quotes from the second table, five of the ten commandments; and to
this list he adds the second of the two great commandments on which hang all the
rest. It is often said by our opponents that if we would name only those precepts
which our Lord enjoined upon the young man, they would be happy to agree with
us; that Christ did not name the fourth commandment, which is not therefore
obligatory upon us. We reply that the fourth commandment is no more omitted
than is the first, the second, the third and the tenth, and also the first of the two
great commandments on which hang all the rest! Does any one believe that the
young man might violate all these and yet enter life eternal?
There can be but one of two positions taken with respect to this text: 1. When
the Saviour said, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,” he named
all the commandments which the young man should keep; or 2. When the Saviour
said “keep the commandments,” he enjoined obedience to them all, and then in
answer to the young man’s inquiry, pointed him to the precepts of the second
table, namely, his duty to his fellow-men, as that in which he was most deficient.
If the first position be correct, it follows that the young man could enter into life
in the character of an idolater, a blasphemer, a Sabbath-breaker, and with an heart
full of covetousness; for our Lord omitted to specify any of those precepts which
define our duty to God, and he also omitted the tenth commandment: “Thou shalt
not covet.” This position needs no refutation, and we turn from it to the other.
That the second position is correct, namely, that Christ enjoined obedience to all
the commandments, and then in answer to the young man’s request, pointed him
to the second table, and to the second of the two great commandments—his duty
to his fellow man—the following facts plainly evince:—
5
 1. This is exactly what is recorded in the text. 2. The view that Christ speci-
fied all the precepts which the young man should observe has been shown to be
false and unreasonable. 3. When the young man insisted that he was blameless
in regard to his duty to his fellow men, our Lord applied a test to him which
undeceived him at once. 4. When Christ said, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep
the commandments,” he spoke in harmony with his own words in Matt.5:17-19.
There he had declared that not even the minutest particle should pass from the
commandments till the heavens and the earth should flee away, and that whoso-
ever should violate one of the least of them, should be of no esteem in the reign
of heaven. Then, our Lord being allowed to explain his own words, it follows that
to keep the commandments, is to observe every one of them; and that the will-
ful violator of the least one, shall have no part in the kingdom of God. And the
apostle James, as we shall thereafter see, establishes in the clearest manner the
fact that whoever understandingly violates one of the ten commandments is guilty
of breaking them all. What will those say to this who affirm that the young man
could keep the commandments, and yet violate every one that defines our duty to
God the great Law-giver?
“Then one of them which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him,
and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto
him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul
and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is
like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments
hang all the law and the prophets.” Matt.22:35-40.
Many mistake the question here proposed to Jesus, and read this text as though
the lawyer had said, Master what is the great commandment which you will give
to take the place of the ten commandments? The question was not asked on that
wise; and those who present this scripture as evidence that Christ gave a new code
to take the place of his Father’s law, labor under a serious mistake. The question
related to the original law of God; what is the great commandment in that?
Christ answered this question by pointing out the two great immutable first
principles on which hang all the law and the prophets: “Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” This is
the sum of our duty to God: on this hang all those precepts which define our duty
to him. “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” On this precept hang all those
commandments which contain our duty to our fellow men. This is the sum of
them, and out of this they all grow.
The Saviour did not abolish the law of his Father by these two precepts; for
they were as ancient as any part of the law of God. Deut.6:5; Lev.19:18. He did
not then hang the law and the prophets upon them; for they had ever hung there;
nor did Christ teach that on these two precepts all the law and the prophets were
abolished. Nay, he showed by this the immutable basis on which the law of Jeho-
vah rests. These two great precepts are, as all admit, unabolished. And the law of
God which hangs upon them is like them, immutable, and, must abide as long as
they endure.
“And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the law to fail.”
Luke16:17. Then it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one of the
commandments of God. How hard then must it be for every precept of the law
of God to be abolished and a new law of God enacted to take its place. Easier
could heaven and earth be destroyed and new heavens and a new earth be created!
6 11
“If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neigh-
bor as thyself, ye do well: but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are
convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law,
and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit
adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill,
thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall
be judged by the law of liberty.” James 2:8-12.
Several important facts are clearly set forth in this quotation. That the royal law
to which James refers is the original law, is certain from the fact that he quotes it
from the Scripture, the Old Testament. This is further evident from the fact that
James in citing two of the ten commandments, presents them on their original
authority; that is, as spoken by God in person. Or if we adopt the marginal reading
of verse 11, he expressly acknowledges the authority of that law which contains
the sixth and seventh commandments. That law is not abolished: on the contrary,
it still stands ready to convince of sin every one who dares to violate it. Verse 9.
While those who fulfill it, instead of falling from grace, are said to do well.
“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is
guilty of all.” This verse furnished a perfect parallel to Matt.5:19. “Whosoever
therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and teach men so, he
shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven,” [“shall be in no esteem in
the reign of heaven.” Campbell’s Translation.] Each of these texts distinctly an-
nounce the doctrine that the willful violation of a single precept of the law of God,
is sufficient to exclude the transgressor from the kingdom of God. But it may be
denied that this language of James refers to the ten commandments. Those who
attempt to maintain such a position would do well to read the next verse, in which
he brings the whole force of his argument to bear upon the ten commandments.
He that violates one of these precepts is guilty of all. Let those consider this who
lightly esteem the fourth commandment. Even were it the least precept in the
Decalogue, those who willfully violate it, and teach men so, shall be of no esteem
in the reign of heaven.
The “ALL” here referred to, means one of two things. 1. It means only those
precepts which James has quoted, which makes “the whole law” to consist of
the three precepts here cited, and leaves us at liberty to violate the first, second,
third, fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth and tenth commandments, and also the first of
the two great precepts from which James quotes—and those who think this ten-
able ground must occupy it at their own peril; or 2. The “ALL” to which James
refers, includes the ten precepts from which he quotes; and he that violates one,
has transgressed them all. By this law of liberty, or royal law, men will be judged
in the day of God.
“Honor thy father and mother, (which is the first commandment with promise,)
that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.” Eph.6:2,3.
There is an important argument contained in this text, which has been generally
overlooked. Paul would enforce upon children their duty to their parents. For this
purpose he appeals to the fifth commandment for authority. Some have attempted
to evade this argument by saying that Paul quoted this precept from the new law
which Christ established, by quoting a part of the commandments to take the place
of the original code as given by the voice of God at Sinai. To answer the assertion
from which this inference is drawn, we present the fact that there is no intimation
in the New Testament that Christ, by quoting a part of the ten commandments,
the law.” Rom.3:31. Having shown conclusively that the law of God was nei-
ther abolished by the teaching nor by the death of the Son of God, we will now
examine the third question:—
3. Was the law of God abolished by the apostles?
It may seem to some individuals that this last question is propounded in a sin-
gular form. But if the law of God was not abolished by the teaching nor yet by
the death of the Son of God, it follows that if abolished at all, it must have been
by the apostles. Many have asserted that the apostles re-enacted nine of the ten
commandments, to take the place of the ten which ceased at Christ’s death: but as
we have shown that the Son of God offered himself up as the great Propitiation
for the transgression of the law, and not as the means of its abolition, it follows
that the ten commandments must be abolished by the apostles, before they could
re-enact one of them. It is no more absurd to speak of the apostles’ abolishing the
ten commandments than it is to speak of their re-enacting nine of them. And if it
seem absurd to any individual to believe that the apostles abolished the ten com-
mandments and then re-enacted nine of them, we ask them to consider whether
the doctrine which represents the infinite Law-giver as doing this very thing, is
not a still greater absurdity?
If the apostles abolished the law of God, who gave them authority? The Son
of God indeed commissioned them to teach all things whatsoever he had com-
manded them; but we have seen, in all his teaching to them, that he maintained
the immutability of his Father’s law, so that from their divine Master they never
received such a commission. If they taught as he taught, we shall find them setting
forth the perpetuity and immutability of the law of God. And that they did speak
the same doctrine which their Lord had taught them, we have divine assurance.
John14:26. If the apostles abolished the law, they must have done it in the very
epistles in which, according to some of our opponents, they re-enacted nine of
the commandments for the gospel dispensation. These epistles were written not
far from A. D. 60; so that if the law of God was abolished by the apostles, it was
abolished about thirty years after the crucifixion.
We have presented the question in this form, that attention might be called to the
folly of those teachers who represent the apostles as legislating upon the law of God.
A single testimony from the apostle James ought to make those blush for shame
who represent the apostles as abolishing the law of God, or as re-enacting a part of
it, to take the place of the original code. “There is one Law-giver who is able to save
and to destroy.” James 4:12. From the preceding verse it is certain that James thus
designates Him who gave the law in person at the first; that law, the authority of
which he so distinctly recognizes in chapter 1:25; 2:8-12. According to James, there
is but one such being in the universe; namely, the King eternal, immortal, invisible,
the only wise God. It is therefore the height of absurdity to represent the apostles as
amending, abolishing, or re-enacting the law of God. The twelve apostles never yet
attempted to dethrone the one Law-giver, or to usurp any of his prerogatives.
We shall now present the plain and explicit testimony of the apostles relative
to the perpetuity of the law of God, and thus allow them to speak on this subject
in their own behalf. The limits of this tract will not admit an extended notice of
objections. For this part of the subject the reader is referred to larger works pub-
lished at Review Office. The word of God is not yea and nay; therefore the plain
statements of our Lord and his apostles must forever vindicate the immutability
of the divine law.
10
Should God abolish his great constitution and establish another in its stead, that
event would not only be marked as distinctly as the establishment of the original
constitution by himself at Sinai, in person, but it would present even a more ex-
traordinary spectacle than for heaven and earth to flee from the presence of him
that sits upon the throne!
It is an important fact that our Lord in presenting portions of the law of God,
always brought them forward as such; that is, he appealed to the law of his Fa-
ther, as a living authority, and quoted from it, not as giving authority to what he
quoted, but presenting those quotations as the authority for his statements. This
fact evinces that Christ was not engaged in re-enacting a part of his Father’s law,
as some are ready to affirm. Our Lord did not act in the capacity of legislator with
his Father’s law. He was its expositor; and as such he laid open its length and
breadth and spirituality. Even the golden rule, “Whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them,” our Saviour bases on the fact that this
was the law and the prophets. Matt.7:12. So that this most admirable saying was
not given to take the place of the law of God and the prophets, but as a precious
truth resting on their authority.
The scriptures which we have quoted must suffice to show the nature of Christ’s
teachings respecting the law of God. It shows that by his teaching he did not abol-
ish the commandments of God. It also evinces that Christ not only taught that it
was easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law to fail, but that
he also taught, until heaven and earth pass a single tittle shall not pass from the
law of God; and that whosoever would enter into everlasting life must keep the
commandments of God, even the least of them. We will now consider the second
question.
2. Was the law of God abolished by the death of Christ?
That we may answer this question in a proper manner, let us carefully consider
Rom.3. We will first examine that portion of the chapter which presents the human
family as condemned by the law of God and speechless in his sight.
“Now we know that what things so ever the law saith, it saith to them who are
under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become
guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justi-
fied in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Rom.3:19,20.
This portion of scripture presents in a striking light the state of mankind with-
out a Saviour. The Apostle had been presenting in the previous verses numerous
quotations from the Old Testament, showing the fearful state of fallen man. The
verses which we have quoted, present us with the holy standard of rectitude by
which the unrighteousness of men is made manifest, and their fearful crimes left
without excuse. “What things so ever the law saith, it saith to them who are under
the law.” How many, then, are under the law? The remainder of the verse deter-
mines this with certainty. “That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world
may become guilty before God.” This fact then is plainly stated: that the whole
human family are addressed by the law of God; that all of its members without
distinction of rank, or order, share in one general condemnation; and that con-
demnation is so just, that every mouth is shut, and all the world stands speechless
before the bar of God. The twenty-third verse explains the cause of this: “For all
have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
The law of God can justify no flesh in his sight. But why cannot the law justify
sinful man? Because by the law is the knowledge of sin. Man is guilty of trans-
7
gression, and the law of God discovers and manifests this fact. The law is God’s
great rule of right; and as such, it shows every departure from rectitude and holi-
ness. We have thus seen the sad state of fallen men. Let us now consider what God
does for their salvation. If he takes back his law, one of two things must be true:-
1. He takes back an unjust law, and thus acknowledges that he was the cause of
man’s condemnation. But this is false; for we have seen that the law is so just that
none can plead against its righteous sentence. Hence if God has taken back his law
we shall be compelled to adopt the second position; namely,
2. He takes back a just law, thus denying his own moral character as expressed
in that law, and overthrowing his own moral government. God cannot lie; and it is
manifestly absurd to teach that God has abolished the principles of his own moral
government. Hence we conclude that God did not, and could not overthrow his
own moral law, in order to save its transgressors.
We inquire again, What did the great Law-giver do in order to save men? If he
did not take back his law, and abolish his own moral government, what did he do?
It would seem that but one other thing could be done; namely, to put the law in
force upon its transgressors. In other words, to execute its penalty upon the hu-
man race. If this were done, all must be destroyed; for all were its transgressors;
and the wages of sin is death. Let us now with gratitude and adoration look at the
wondrous plan which God has devised for man’s redemption: a plan in which
justice and mercy meet together, and righteousness and peace kiss each other:
[Ps.85:8-13:] a system of redemption by which God can be just and yet can justify
him that believeth in Jesus. It is set forth by Paul in the following language:-
“Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to
declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the for-
bearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be
just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” Rom.3:24-26.
In these words the great plan of redemption is set forth; but oh! what has it not
cost! Man had broken the law of Jehovah and fallen under its awful and yet just
condemnation. God could not reverse his holy law without destroying the moral
government of the universe; but he so loved our race that he gave his only Son to
die for perishing man. John3:14-17. He sent his Son to be the propitiation or of-
fering for the sins of men. 1John4:10.
Christ came to take the curse of the law upon himself, and to offer his life as a
ransom for its transgressors. Gal.3:13; 1Tim.2:5,6.
The Father had two objects of the dearest affection: his own perfect law, and his
only Son. He would save man who had revolted from allegiance to that law, and
openly set it at naught. To do this, the great Law-giver must sacrifice either his
perfect law, or his beloved and only Son. The first he could not do; for God cannot
deny himself; and he hath in all ages ever magnified his word above all his name;
[Ps.138:2;] but he could give his only Son to die, that revolted man might have a
sacrifice to bring to God that could avail to take away sin.
Jesus was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification. He
ascended into the true Tabernacle in heaven, the new covenant Sanctuary, where
the ark of God stands, containing his holy law—as a great High Priest, to plead
the merits of his blood in behalf of penitent men. Heb.9; Rev.11:19. As the ancient
high priest entered the typical tabernacle to sprinkle the ark of the testament with
blood even thus was it necessary that our great High Priest should act. The earthly
8 9
high priest did not sprinkle the blood of sin-offering upon the ark that he might
blot out the ten commandments which it contained, or that he might lessen the
obligation of men to observe them. On the contrary, he entered the tabernacle with
blood, because man had violated that holy law, and could not be pardoned without
the offering of blood to take away sin.
Even thus did our Lord. By his own blood he entered the true Tabernacle, and
presented himself before the Father on our account. In fulfilling the ministration
of the true holy places, the two dearest objects of affection to the great Law-giver
are again united. But how wondrous the union! Jesus, who has died for the trans-
gressors of that sacred law, now stands as a great High Priest before the ark con-
taining the law of God, pleading in behalf of men, the merits of his own sacrificial
death. The Law-giver can accept the offering, and man, who has broken the law
of God, can be pardoned.
It is evident, therefore, that the death of our Saviour sustains the same rela-
tion to the law of God, that the death of the victim in the ancient typical system
sustained to that law. The design of either was not that man should have liberty
to violate the law of God, but that man who had violated that law, might have the
offer of pardon. The typical system could not, indeed, take away sin; but it pointed
out the fact that without the shedding of blood there could be no remission of sins,
and clearly pointed forward to the great Sacrifice which should be offered for the
sin of the world.
If it were possible for God to give men an adequate idea of the immutability of
his sacred law, he has given it in the spectacle of his Son dying upon the cross for
us. Those who think that the death of the Son of God abolished the very law which
made that death necessary, are requested to consider the following points:—
1. If the law that condemned man could have been abolished, it would not have
been necessary that the blood of Christ should be shed, that atonement might be
made for its transgressors. But the Son of God died because the law which man
had broken could not be taken back. 2. But if the death of Christ destroyed the law
which condemned men, then they are delivered from its just sentence, whether
they repent or not: in other words, Universalism is true. 3. But this view makes
the law of God, and the Son of God, both fall beneath the same blow, and without
honoring God, or leading man to repentance: it destroys both the cherished ob-
jects of Jehovah’s affection: subjecting the Son of God to a shameful death, and
overturning the moral government of the great Law-giver. 4. But the conditional
offer of pardon made to man through the gospel of the Son of God, plainly evinces
that the law of God still exists, and that men can only be delivered from it, on con-
dition of repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Hence the law of the Most High is not abolished by the death of the Son of God.
His death indeed permits mercy to enter and offer pardon to guilty man; but the
law of God abides all the while; and when the work of mercy is accomplished,
our great High Priest will leave the tabernacle of God, no more to plead for sinful
man, and the penalty of the law, the second death, will be awarded to its transgres-
sors.
It is clearly established, therefore, that the death of the Son of God did not blot
out the law of God the Father. On the contrary, his death is that fact which, above
all others, testifies to its immutability. But we cannot employ so strong language
on this point as that which Paul has used in summing up this very argument. He
says: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish